Creatio Ex Nihilo and Physical Science

[ChristIsTheWay]

What is the relation of the Catholic de fide teaching of creatio ex nihilo and cosmological theories on the origins of the universe? Should we view the teaching as potentially in competition with scientific theories of cosmogony? That is, if a cosmological theory involving a past eternal universe were to gain widespread acceptance in the scientific community, would the Church’s understanding of creatio ex nihilo come into conflict with that scientific theory?

I know that the standard big bang model currently allows for the absolute beginning of the universe from nothing. However, when discussing this question with proponents of an eternal universe (both religious and nonreligious persons) they tend to fall back on the promise of some future theory, say an oscillating model or some kind of multiverse, to eliminate the possibility of a finite past for our universe.

 

[WesleyF]

The problem I see with the idea of an eternally existing universe is this - if the universe has eternally existed, then an infinite amount of time has passed, that means everything that had to happen*** has*** already happened, because an infinite time has passed. But since things are still happening, it means that everything has not already happened, which further implies that the time that has passed is not infinite but finite.

An eternally existing universe doesn’t explain itself because it is constantly in a state of transition. A transition occurs from one state to another, so the current state of the universe occurred by a transition from the previous state, which in turn occurred by a transition from its previous state and it goes on without any ultimate explanation.

Therefore such a theory of absurdity is merely an attempt in faith to escape from the reality of the non-contingent first cause that leads to everything else - God.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Preaching to the choir about the problems of a past eternal universe. My question is more of a hypothetical one that is posed by more than one proponent of an eternal universe. They don’t really seem care about the problems associated with the idea or else have found what they consider satisfactory resolutions. I don’t know. One guy seemed really excited about Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, which supposedly has some empirical support in the CMB data. I’ve read criticism of that supposed evidence, though. Anyways, the question has come up often enough I realized I don’t really understand the particulars of the dogma of creatio ex nihilo and its relation to scientific theories on cosmogony. It seems to me that it is at least hypothetically possible for the two to conflict, though I am deeply skeptical of past eternal universes.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

The problem I see with the idea of an eternally existing universe is this - if the universe has eternally existed, then an infinite amount of time has passed, that means everything that had to happen*** has*** already happened, because an infinite time has passed. But since things are still happening, it means that everything has not already happened, which further implies that the time that has passed is not infinite but finite.

I’m not a physicist (I study Chemistry), but from what I recall reading somewhere, everyone has what physicists call their own “frame of reference”. It’s the world as it is to you. Albert Einstein elaborated on this with his theory of relativity. But like I said, I’m not a physicist, so I can’t explain much on that.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[Prodigal_Son]

What is the relation of the Catholic de fide teaching of creatio ex nihilo and cosmological theories on the origins of the universe? Should we view the teaching as potentially in competition with scientific theories of cosmogony? That is, if a cosmological theory involving a past eternal universe were to gain widespread acceptance in the scientific community, would the Church’s understanding of creatio ex nihilo come into conflict with that scientific theory?

I know that the standard big bang model currently allows for the absolute beginning of the universe from nothing. However, when discussing this question with proponents of an eternal universe (both religious and nonreligious persons) they tend to fall back on the promise of some future theory, say an oscillating model or some kind of multiverse, to eliminate the possibility of a finite past for our universe.

The question, “Why is there anything?” is not a scientific question. Therefore, creation ex nihilo will always compete with the “infinite past” theory, no matter how scientists try to work around these theories.

Suppose that physicists find that there is a multiverse. Wouldn’t we then have the question, “Why is there a multiverse?” There are two answers: (1) There always was a multiverse, or (2) It came into existence. So science has nothing to say here.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

I’m not a physicist (I study Chemistry), but from what I recall reading somewhere, everyone has what physicists call their own “frame of reference”. It’s the world as it is to you. Albert Einstein elaborated on this with his theory of relativity. But like I said, I’m not a physicist, so I can’t explain much on that.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

I’m not quite sure myself but I’ve heard of different theories of time, some of which might be able to accommodate an infinite past. I don’t really know much about them or how seriously they are taken by scientists and philosophers.

The question, “Why is there anything?” is not a scientific question.

I agree and I am not asking that. My faith tells me that God is why is there anything at all, rather than nothing. However, science can ask “how is there something?” That is a perfectly valid scientific question and is the question behind past eternal models of the universe. As I have understood things, there is a difference between “why” and “how.” I think it was Michio Kuku that said even if we have a complete theory of everything, we can always ask, “why that equation?”

Therefore, creation ex nihilo will always compete with the “infinite past” theory, no matter how scientists try to work around these theories.

Does it really have to? I seem to remember someone claiming Aquinas didn’t think the idea of creatio ex nihilo and an eternal world were contradictory. After some searching, I managed to find this: fordham.edu/halsall/basis/aquinas-eternity.html

If I understand his position, it is possible that God could have created an eternal universe. I could be mistaken in my understanding, though. Maybe there is a difference between scientific theories of cosmogony, even past eternal models, and the de fide dogma of creatio ex nihilo?

Suppose that physicists find that there is a multiverse. Wouldn’t we then have the question, “Why is there a multiverse?” There are two answers: (1) There always was a multiverse, or (2) It came into existence. So science has nothing to say here.

I would disagree that science has nothing to say here. Science could hypothetical answer the question of whether or not a multiverse has always existed or if it, too, has a beginning. It just pushes the question back a bit but does not resolve it. Though sense the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, most of the proponents of an eternal universe that I have encountered don’t rely on a multiverse argument.